[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b249584b-47b8-ffd9-432e-986d69260ff1@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 20:46:08 +0200
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] staging: ks7010: Delete unnecessary uses of the
variable "retval"
>>> @@ -90,7 +90,6 @@ static int ks7010_sdio_write(struct ks_wlan_private *priv, unsigned int address,
>>> void ks_wlan_hw_sleep_doze_request(struct ks_wlan_private *priv)
>>> {
>>> unsigned char rw_data;
>>> - int retval;
>>>
>>> DPRINTK(4, "\n");
>>>
>>> @@ -99,9 +98,10 @@ void ks_wlan_hw_sleep_doze_request(struct ks_wlan_private *priv)
>>>
>>> if (atomic_read(&priv->sleepstatus.status) == 0) {
>>> rw_data = GCR_B_DOZE;
>>> - retval =
>>> - ks7010_sdio_write(priv, GCR_B, &rw_data, sizeof(rw_data));
>>> - if (retval) {
>>> + if (ks7010_sdio_write(priv,
>>> + GCR_B,
>>> + &rw_data,
>>> + sizeof(rw_data))) {
>>
>> A multi-line function call in an if test does not look nice at all. The
>> original code was an easy-to-read expectable pattern.
>
> I agree. I am not strict on the 80 char limit, especially in cases like
> the above.
Would you try an other source code formatting for the suggested change pattern?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists